South Africa v NZ

by chewed_mintie Sat 20 Aug 2011, 4:26 pm

First topic message reminder :

Well, SA 6-0 up but don't want to tackle....NZ just have to be paitent as SA are being cut to shreds

by chewed_mintie Sun 21 Aug 2011, 2:36 pm

Slade will be fine for the experience. I've seen worse displays from 10's in a winning team.

by Full Credit Sun 21 Aug 2011, 3:07 pm

I have to say I agree with GG on this one, there's no doubt that the correct decision was made, the concerning thing is the matter in which it was made. The laws are clear that a TMO cannot rule on a forward pass and he ruled it was forward.

I have been told that, amongst other things, the reason the TMO doesn't rule on forward passes is that because the camera angle could give parallax error (much like a passenger in your car looking at your speedo and thinking you're going faster than you are because they're not looking at the needle head-on). I don't know how valid this argument is because there are plenty of line markers on the field to use as a point of reference. I think the rule should be changed to allow the TMO to (legally) rule on this because it's plain to see when a pass is forward or not.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 3:09 pm

Or somehow embed kickproof GPS locator chips in the ball... Very Happy

by Full Credit Sun 21 Aug 2011, 3:31 pm

I guess we've all seen the coaching video of the forward pass where a ball is thrown backwards out of the hands but still travels forward across the ground courtesy of the forward motion of the runner. This makes ruling on forward passes in general a difficult endeavor for the TMO but in the case on the weekend the player passing the ball was stationary making it quite clear.

Having watched my fair share of league I've always felt that rugby was far more lenient on the forward pass rule.

by eirebilly Sun 21 Aug 2011, 3:35 pm

Sometimes you worry me GG. Saying that Clancy should be stripped of his RWC duties is absolutely ridiculous. It was a rather odd situation yesterday but it happens in Rugby sometimes (the quick lineout by Wales against Ireland) and we should all move on.

I have read your moans when something goes against NZ on all too many occasions and you are eerily quiet when NZ get a bit of fortune. I understand your bias but try to keep things in the realms of reality Ok!

by **Pal Joey** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 3:36 pm

Really comes down to the ref being in the right position to make the correct ruling... or for the assistant referee to inform the ref before he goes to the TMO.

by Full Credit Sun 21 Aug 2011, 3:45 pm

That's right Linebreaker, it's more of an instinctive thing. A fullback in full flight is more likely to throw a forward (floating) pass than a big lumbering prop but is more likely to get away with it. I think the ref gets a pretty good idea as to the degree of a forward pass by the intensity of the objection by the home crowd (or it's hushed silence depending on who threw it).

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:03 pm

biltongbek wrote:There is a lot being said here about the forward pass try that should have been given even though it wouldn't have been a ligitimate try.

I for one think justice have been done, you would say I think that way because I am a Bok supporter. Be it as it may. I have on the same lines noted that the forward pass in 2007 should not have been a try and changed the game, may times.

For once it would be nice to get a win over the All Blacks without the hints of excuse.

In 2009 there were injury excuses, now the forward pass.

As you all know I call it like I see it and are objective, the first to criticise my own team and never one for blowing smoke up someones back side.

Yes the All Blacks are a better team than us without a doubt.

The stats say of the last 8 tests we won 4 and All Blacks have won 4, no matter the reasoning behind it, Henry will be nervous come Semi Final time and they have to face us.

No one is trying to use it as an excuse Biltong. SA won fair and square. They masterfully executed a simple and effective game plan (hardly a surprise) and the ABs just couldn't take their chances on counter-attack for once.

I don't even think the strength of the side is an excuse. I would have backed that line up to beat most teams in the world, and Henry would not have named the line up if he thought they would lose.

Slade wasn't good enough with the boot. Thompson wasn't good enough in the collision area and the young superstar back line were too impatient and made too many handling errors.

The Clancy thing is an aside. I'm saying that we must start to hold referees accountable for their mistakes. He's clearly done something that all referees know just isn't allowed under the laws. My issue is with preventing vigilante Clancy being allowed to make up the rules as he goes along, like some kind of crooked policeman. Whether the overall outcome was the correct one or not is entirely irrelevant. If we start allowing officials to decide what is best individually, rather than follow IRB laws then we are on a slippery slope.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:07 pm

More of an honest cop if you ask me... and millions of others.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:11 pm

Remember that the pass was only forward in the opinion of the TMO.

Now imagine the fringe cases around that if we accept this precedent.

Also think about how far back we'll allow the TMO to go, one phase, two phases, six phases? as soon as you make a cut off then "common sense" might determine that the play immediately following that should be considered too.

That starts to make things complicated which is why the cut off is where it is now. This is a case for the IRB to determine, and can't be made ad hoc by officials on the ground.

Referees who think they know better are rouge referees, and I think vigilante Clancy and his crooked cohorts need to be made an example of before any more referees start using "common sense" over the laws of the game.

by asoreleftshoulder Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:21 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Referees who think they know better are rouge referees, and I think vigilante Clancy and his crooked cohorts need to be made an example of before any more referees start using "common sense" over the laws of the game.

Lol yeah lets fire every ref who makes a mistake a high profile mistake and see how that works out for us.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:29 pm

The difference here is that Clancy and the TMO both knew what they were conspiring to do was against the laws of the game. Knowing something is wrong and doing it deliberately, is very different from making a mistake.

Vigilante Clancy must be banned for 6 months at least, and this local school teacher must never be allowed near a camera or a microphone again. Frankly this is right up there with the gold watch debacle, and smells like a case of e-coli.

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:30 pm

So now we are arriving at conspiracy theories?

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:31 pm

Well, I'll stop short of conspiracy and just mention that a trend seems to have formed.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:35 pm

Can you give us the precedent occurrence of this so called trend, GG?

It's all in your mind I'm afraid...

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:38 pm

Well the purpose of trending is merely to anticipate what will happen next by way of extrapolation.

I'll just say that my anticipation would be to expect shenanigans to occur on a visit to South Africa when the springboks are desperate for a victory.

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:42 pm

You know Greyghost I have a lot of respect for All Black rugby and hence a huge amount of respect for their rugby culture, during the years I have seen many a Maori, Pacific Islander being interviewed and they have always struck me as people who have a culture of respect for their traditions, elders and other people.

I love it when we play Samoa specifically as the are physical beasts with a natural talent for the physical stuff, be it Brian Lima with his infamous hard ( and often dangerous) tackles.

When SA got back into international rugby I got the distinct feeling countries across the world didn't want us to succeed, due to our political history, it often felt to me like referees would give us at least a 7 point handicap when we were playing.

After a while I started accepting that even though that might not have been the case, it didn't matter what I thought.

One thing I did learn through that was that the only thing we have at the end of the day is respect.

Respect for ourselves and for others. The way you are carrying on now is making an issue about something that firstly cannot be changed, you are starting to accuse South Africa of being a country that will do just about anything to win a game.

This argument will get you nowhere and only allow more people to lose respect for the insistent ramblings you are carrying on here.

I never cared to remember, but am sure if I wanted to I would be able to highlight many a match we played against the All Blacks where if I wanted to i could find "clandestine" reasons why we lost matches.

So I am asking you to drop this now. Everything you accuse the referee and TMO and SA about is not an isolated event.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:45 pm

Everything you accuse the referee and TMO and SA about is not an isolated event.

Well we agree on that then.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't an attack on Springbok rugby, or lame excuse making.

As I've said NZ were beaten fair and square.

My issue is that we can't allow a trend to form whereby referees can decide the laws of the game on the fly. Clancy has made the wrong decision, we must now question his credentials to take charge of an important RWC match. The blame lies squarely with him.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Sun 21 Aug 2011, 6:04 pm

Merging this with the other match thread

by asoreleftshoulder Sun 21 Aug 2011, 6:31 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:

My issue is that we can't allow a trend to form whereby referees can decide the laws of the game on the fly. Clancy has made the wrong decision, we must now question his credentials to take charge of an important RWC match. The blame lies squarely with him.

Craig Joubert alloed Ronan O'Gara to run 2 metres past the point where he made the mark before kicking deep into French territory yesterday,he then acknowledged this by saying to RoG "next time kick it from the mark,okay".Clearly by your standards he should also be fired as he should have called O'Gara back but instead flagrantly changed the rules.

by doctor_grey Sun 21 Aug 2011, 7:22 pm

Biltong,
If you win the RWC, then you will have the only two-time RWC winning coach in history! Quite a conundrum, eh?

But overall I wouldn't write too, too much into any of these Tri Nations matches. This year the Tri-Nations is a series pre-RWC matches. Coaches are trying different things and getting teams ready for the tournament. I really don't care who wins the Tri Natons next week, it is not really the same as prior years with the RWC just around the corner.

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 7:24 pm

doctor_grey wrote:Biltong,
If you win the RWC, then you will have the only two-time RWC winning coach in history! Quite a conundrum, eh?

.

you are talking about when PDV won the age group world cup?

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 7:29 pm

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:

My issue is that we can't allow a trend to form whereby referees can decide the laws of the game on the fly. Clancy has made the wrong decision, we must now question his credentials to take charge of an important RWC match. The blame lies squarely with him.

Craig Joubert alloed Ronan O'Gara to run 2 metres past the point where he made the mark before kicking deep into French territory yesterday,he then acknowledged this by saying to RoG "next time kick it from the mark,okay".Clearly by your standards he should also be fired as he should have called O'Gara back but instead flagrantly changed the rules.

I didn't see the incident. So I can't comment. However I'd say that just like taking a tap from the wrong spot, the ref should have made him re-take the kick from the correct place.

This trend of referees making up the rules as they go along and being unaccountable for their mistakes is something that needs to be stamped out. I don't know what POB is doing. He seems to lack leadership qualities. He needs to start suspending referees for poor performances and like I said, sacking vigilante Clancy.

by doctor_grey Sun 21 Aug 2011, 7:38 pm

Biltong, yes. I was cheating a bit, but yes.
But what if your guy wins the RWC? You still want to throw a champ out on his, er, ears?

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 7:52 pm

doctor_grey wrote:Biltong, yes. I was cheating a bit, but yes.
But what if your guy wins the RWC? You still want to throw a champ out on his, er, ears?

Emack asked me the same question yesterday. This was my answer to him.

Alan, even if we win the world cup PDV won't rule in my book.

From what I have seen during the last few years will never convince me he is a quality coach.

In 2008 under PDV Sa won 9 out of 13 tests
In 2009 under PDV SA won 8 out of 12 tests
In 2010 under PDV SA won 8 out of 13 tests
In 2011 under PDv Sa won 1 out of 4 tests.

His overall win percentage is 26 wins out of 42 tests, which gives him a win rate of 62%, if he goes as I expect through to the semi final and lose to NZ there, his record will be 31 wins out of 48 tests, which gives him a win rate of 64%, you would argue that this is very similar to Jake white's record.

On pure stats alone yes. But on further investigation you will see that PDV has brought very few new players in, those he did had little exposure, most of those he brought in was because injuries gave hom no choice.

Our game plan has stagnated. He regularly make substitutions at inoppotune times, he has not once been honest to the SA rugby public about anything.

Always defensive, and most important of all, Jake white took over a team in dire straights, who had for the previous 6 years not won any trophies, had their worst world cup ever the previous year.

Pieter de Villiers took over a world championship team and as the prrof is in the eating, almost the whole team today consisted of the same players.

by emack2 Sun 21 Aug 2011, 8:13 pm

Hi,Biltong it was a bit tongue in cheekteasing by me over PDV,I don`t think a great deal about him as a coach.
BUT,he is a Political appointment as said earlier he may survive.
Boks once they get back on line will be formidable i`ve always known it,seems you are the doubter.
Roll on next year and get back to the real 4Ns.

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 8:39 pm

emack2 wrote:Hi,Biltong it was a bit tongue in cheekteasing by me over PDV,I don`t think a great deal about him as a coach.
BUT,he is a Political appointment as said earlier he may survive.
Boks once they get back on line will be formidable i`ve always known it,seems you are the doubter.
Roll on next year and get back to the real 4Ns.

Good evening Alan, yes I know you guys like to tease me with the PDV factor every now and again.

It is not that I doubt our players abilities, but due to the coach and the selections he can make on match day, added to that the stupidity of playing smit at prop etc. makes me not be so confident when playing the great teams.

Have been dissappointed too many times in the past few years.

by Standulstermen Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:22 pm

Can any Kiwi's out there tell me what the status of John Afoa is within the AB squad. Will he be in the RWC squad?

by fa0019 Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:24 pm

Yo biltongbek

I may be biased given I'm an adopted WP man but I after watching the match I could really see a Rassie influenced defensive set up.

The boks were brutal in defensive.... they know that all RWC success stories are first built from a strong defensive and they went to the man who adds steel to whatever team he coaches.

Its a good sign... NZ were obviously missing some key players but in terms of physicality you will not face a tougher centre pairing in world rugby then Kahui & SBW.

In terms of the tactics I think SA played to their strengths... Morne & Du Preez showed why they must be the starting half backs.. they work so well together and Du Preez takes a lot of pressure off Morne and knows his game in & out... the same cannot be said for James.

Bring back Schalk & Frans Steyn and I think SA will be a real contest for NZ... one that I think they probably underestimate... the best position the boks can be in.

by aucklandlaurie Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:27 pm

Standulsterman
He would have been told yesterday, and the rest of us find out tomorrow.

by nottins Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:29 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:

This trend of referees making up the rules as they go along and being unaccountable for their mistakes is something that needs to be stamped out. I don't know what POB is doing. He seems to lack leadership qualities. He needs to start suspending referees for poor performances and like I said, sacking vigilante Clancy.

by aucklandlaurie Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:33 pm

Biltong & fa0019
PDV should ban Rassie Erasmus going anywhere near any Springboks,all he does is disrupt PDV's training programme....(just kidding)...

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:37 pm

Good evening FA, yes I agree that SA has been under estimated in most world cups, always been third favourites of the Tri Nation teams. That suits us.

I liked what I saw yesterday, refreshing to see a solid boks scrum for a change, I just wish we had some variance on attack, I still see that as our biggest problem. We can`t always rely on scoring 18 points with the boot, for that we need to have dominant territory.

The scramle defence saved us, and even though our defensive organisation has improved , it is not there yet.

I too think Rassie has made a difference

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:42 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: Biltong & fa0019
PDV should ban Rassie Erasmus going anywhere near any Springboks,all he does is disrupt PDV's training programme....(just kidding)...

Yep, we must just hope PDV doesn't realise that before they get on a plane. I often wonder what SARU has promised Rassie to get him to work with PDV, little over a year ago he bluntly refused

by Taylorman Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:55 pm

Morning all.
Well done to SA. Can't be bothered discussing the forward pass issue. The rule should be changed to allow for taking pre try events into account anyway as it should it can be made a farce of in its current form.
The forward pass was one dumb thing after a series of others from the AB's with the last second execution stuff. The maturity and particularly leadership of the missing players was obvious. AB's should have scored tries and didn't and just drifted through the match plugging away. But as GH said some of those players had to be played to see if they could front Wcup time and some will be nervous (well- theyll know already)

SA were excellent, back to their 2009 form and its just a matter of whether its good enough this year. On a good day they could beat anyone with that performance so looks like we have a real tussle going on this year.

You'll be a little more pleased Biltong. Still not sure about the reliance on the Steyn boot but certainly Brussouw and the pack was excellent.

It could have been a different story if some of those tries were let in so defence although successful on the day with better attacks may just get there so defence will be a key problem still.

Although this series/ Samoa/ Fiji has confirmed there is a little more in the depth department with NZ theres not a lot in it between the 3.

Agree with GG Todd has to come back in as Thompson is no 7. This mixing positions is making me nervous. The wing spots are a lolly scramble and although he probably isnt in Guilford is the only one to have shown some consistency. Sivi will be in after that match as well.

by fa0019 Sun 21 Aug 2011, 10:08 pm

biltongbek

I too think that SA currently look a little suspect in attack. They can't just think they can bash their way through teams via their loose forwards if they want to compete in the big matches.

They still have frans Steyn mind... his boot if used correctly will dominate territory by pinning teams deep in their own half... its a very useful weapon for a forward orientaed team which requires a lot of territory like SA.

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 10:10 pm

Hi taylorman, I personally think New Zealand put in a very good performance. Yes admittedly there were mistakes, but that is to be expected with their first run on as those combinations. I think people are a little harsh on Slade, he really wasn't that bad

Although Weepu seemed to create more spark, in my opinion the best back up to Carter.

Our desperation saved us the match

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 10:13 pm

True fa, I do think Lambie is required ahead of Steyn to influence our creativity

by doctor_grey Sun 21 Aug 2011, 10:40 pm

Biltong,
I think a number of us are giving you a little stick about Mr. PdV. We know he is a tad off the wall (euphamism for nuts). Thanks for the stats. I hadn't realised his win % was close to Jake White. That's actually a shock. I would have sworn it was worse.

I certainly agree he is leveraging the 2007 RWC champs as long as he can. And it will catch up sooner rather than later. I do hope that doen't happen until after the tournament, though.

by emack2 Sun 21 Aug 2011, 10:44 pm

Biltong and faoo19.yesterday proved nothing,that was a very solid Bok performance.We have`nt really seen a proper Bok side since 2009,no one is going underestimate ANY side in a RWC .Both Boks and on recent performances France,plus as always Australia and maybe England will be there or there abouts come Semis time.All Blacks who knows or in my case
cares?
The only SH coach who has come out of this with any credibility is Robbie Deans.He said he would play his strongest team in every match and did so,
he has a home match to win the 3Ns if he can and momentum going into the RWC.
Yesterday the All Blacks fielded Kahui,Dagg,Toeva,Afoa,Woodcock,Slade all either first or second starts,or back after injuries and game time in ITM,a second class front row in match fitness and combinations.
A back row with 3 number sixes trying to play 6,7,8 all of which they can cover but none are specialists.
More than that despite fielding a back division that had never played together before in a match.Most of them were on a last chance for a RWC place talk about pressure.
All the mid field were using little chip kicks,to turn the defence apparently some back room genius had worked out that would turn the defence.
Apprently to orders,then the coaches have the nerve to cry crocodile tears about not having the leadership to change the game plan.
Those leaders they`d left at home,If he was serious TED would have sent Weepu and Ellis on to start,the second half told backs to kick for territory,had SBW and Kahui runnig at and commiting defenders before off loading.
Scramble defence and breakdown domination by BroussowMAYBE,Off side laws certainly were`nt very rigoursly applied against them.
Biltong you in the the past have talked of Owen Franks blocking off at breakdowns.Boks were doing that superbly.lost count of Boks accidently falling over at base of All Blacks Ruck,or slowly trying to get back onside.
Masterly,well done for getting away with it on another day?
Further if you Shut Down the All Blacks,at least they looked like they could score tries,they shut you down far more easily .
You never looked like scoring a try,both sides will be far better if they meet in the RWC and neither will underestimate the other side.
I felt sorry for the All Blacks sent they were never going to beat and organised near full strength Bok side at Home.I forecast a Bok win by 7 points ,I was 2 points out.Gives me no pleasure to say I TOLD YOU SO.

by **Biltong** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 11:01 pm

Alan like I said before, in fact I think the article you are referring to was "how to negate All Black momentum" last year on the old 606. And there I was talking about what Franks did and teams needed to be awake to that. I haven`t watched the game a second time yet, but good to know if that was indeed the case.

On the try scoring issue, yes we didn`t look like scoring, what was encouraging though was that after that first twenty minutes we started putting phases together and execution failed badly. Soon we will be scoring tries.

by Taylorman Sun 21 Aug 2011, 11:31 pm

Yes very good scrambling defence.

I thought at least 3 tries would be scored- theres a point when you decide they've done enough to get to the line and that happened at least 3 times.

Then somehow they either got stopped or made the wrong decision. Either way both due to SA applying the right pressure.

We were like that against Oz at Eden Park when they were throwing everything at us.

But overall SA look ok I reckon. They're heading in the right direction in some ways. I just think tactically they might struggle and with the number of line breaks- 23 I believe- that sort of initial defence needs to be tightened or they'll struggle.

With Slade I just guess we're used to Carters high standards so when you see duffed kick offs sideways bombs etc we really need to remind ourselves of that.

Couldnt stand Cowans distribution. Hes back to that take one step then pass bizo. Weepu adds much more dimension to the role with his option taking- so although I agree with Weepu as cover as 10 I'd have him at 9 to start, and could move out if Carter were injured. Ellis I dont know either. We're not strong at 9 and you'd think with our pack we would be.

I'd go back to Cruden as he seems more confident now though at ITM level we did the Donald thing last year and that didnt work.

by emack2 Sun 21 Aug 2011, 11:45 pm

Hi,taylorman read and digest my comments then let me know.be fair to
Slade he was on a loser from the off.he`s not Dan Carter.Who is,Crudon against a dodgy Waikato ITM side or the Boks at home.
IF he had the first choice pack in front of him.weepu at scrumhalf,first choice back division outside him THEN judge him.

by nganboy Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:15 am

First
Congrats to SA for winning. I thought Brussow and Matfield were great. Steyn did exactly as you would have expected of him.
However, I thought that SA would beat us by more. May be losing Lambie so early made a difference. We had so many 2nd tier / returning players that in my opinion it showed me that only a couple more players would have made a difference to the result.
Thompson showed that he is not a number 7 but is okay against the 2nd tier teams. Messum showed that he is not an international.
Afoa proved that he isn't really up to it.
Woodcock showed that if he can get fit that he should start.
Ali Williams showed that he is alright to get into the squad but shouldn't start.
Whitelock proved that he is a starter but needs a hardman to balance his athleticism.
Slade showed that its a year or two too early and that Cruden was hard done by in not being given more chances but there's nothing in it.
Dagg showed that he will deserve a starting spot as next year and may be even earlier.
Gear showed that given the ball he is good but that he doesn't work hard enough.
Cowan showed that he might share starting duties with Weepu.
Weepu showed that if he has to fill in at 10 he wont be an embarressment.
SBW showed glimpses but proved that Nonu is the best choice.
Kahui showed he still has class but is not as good as Smith.
Toeava showed that he is all skill an little reliability.

I think if we had added any three of Read, McCaw, Carter, Smith then that extra organisation would have gotten us home. As it was, we didn't take the chances and SA did.

by Taylorman Mon 22 Aug 2011, 5:40 am

Yep fair call alan. The slade aspect especially.
agree weepu should have started but it did prove some things at a wcup level.
GH will have been given some pointers about some players.
Dagg for one is now certain.
Kahui is now likely no. 2 13.
Messam i believe is gone
toeava showed enough
slade has pressure side to him. Sure he didnt have the best around him but like donald last year key things went south. Easy goals. Up and unders going backwards. Poor options going forward.
The selectors had to see some form before the team selection is made.
Without this match the team would have likely been 4-5 players different.

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 6:43 am

Taylorman, this game to me was very important from ons specific aspect.

New Zealand intended to come out with a shock and awe tactic, they went hell for leather with their backs in the first twenty minutes, had they managed to score a few tries early, this game would have been theirs.

For South africa on the other hand, it was vital that they kept New Zealand out, and by some miracles they did.
After twnty minutes and hving some points on the board, the Springboks started to control the match with their forwards. There was still too much kicking that either didn't go out or wasn't effective. The longer the game went on the more confident the boks became.

They will become much better during the pool matches.

by nganboy Mon 22 Aug 2011, 6:51 am

Agree Biltong
I reckon SA will get on a bit of a roll. Still reckon we can take you though.

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 6:57 am

Nganboy, I agree with you that NZ is by far the better team. You just have to look at the last 4 years' results and it will confirm that.

The fact is NZ wins 5 out of every six games. The only teams they lose to are SA, Australia and France, no other team even gets close to a victory.

SA on the other hand lose games against teams that in my opinion shouldn't happen.

What is interesting though is we somehow manage to beat NZ, in the period between the two world cups SA won 5 and NZ won 6. somehow our limited gameplan makes it difficult for NZ, and we are by far your biggest threat.

by nganboy Mon 22 Aug 2011, 7:23 am

I reckon we should delete the two games this year because we both contrived to lose them.
I think we should have sent a slightly stronger team and given ourselves a decent chance of winning. (same to you guys earlier) I've no problem with trying out a few players just lots and lots in one go.

by Rob B Mon 22 Aug 2011, 7:23 am

I got a few things out of the game:

- SA were much better than last week: certainly cobwebs there in game 1 - this will give them a lot of confidence for the RWC. A 4th loss would have been pretty devastating and could have had a longer term impact - a gift courtesy of GH and the ABs to get the SA campaign on the rails?

- No one can field B teams and expect to win - the myth that an AB B side can beat most (or all) test sides blown away in my view. GH probably too cocky with that one - yes some players needed a run - but probably taking things too far.

- Looking very flimsy at No.10 - just can't see what the ABs are going to do without DC.

- Regardless of whether the forward pass should have been ruled on or not, the outcome was correct - it was not a try and there is nothing worse than seeing tries awarded when they are not, or tries incorrectly disallowed.

- Sets up a decider in Brisbane. Some of the gloss taken off already as it seems O'Connor will be suspended for at least a match due to his no show at the RWC team announcement. Shocking decision making which may prove crucial with W seeking their first 3N in 10 years.

by Sponsored content